Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court rejected the appellants' application for release of the amounts deposited by the respondent company. The appellants' contention that their petition was prior in time, entitling them to preferential payment from the deposited amount, was unmerited. Since the Company Court had decided to proceed with winding up the company, the appellants would have to stand with other creditors for recovering dividends u/s 529 of the Act. Their petition was rendered infructuous once the winding up order was passed, as a company can be wound up only once. The appellants' application seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount in their disposed petition was not maintainable, as they could not have better rights than other creditors over the company's properties. The appeal was disposed of.
The High Court rejected the appellants' application for release of the amounts deposited by the respondent company. The appellants' contention that their petition was prior in time, entitling them to preferential payment from the deposited amount, was unmerited. Since the Company Court had decided to proceed with winding up the company, the appellants would have to stand with other creditors for recovering dividends u/s 529 of the Act. Their petition was rendered infructuous once the winding up order was passed, as a company can be wound up only once. The appellants' application seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount in their disposed petition was not maintainable, as they could not have better rights than other creditors over the company's properties. The appeal was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
